>Massachusetts was being MUCH more logical when they ruled that the Constitution doesn't say "guns," so "arms" doesn't just mean guns

Mass outlawed stun guns. A lady was arrested for having one for protection from an ex.
It went to SCOTUS. Mass courts argued they weren't covered because they were not in common use when the constitution was written. But SCOTUS already ruled in Heller that it covers all Bearable arms and not just those in common use at the time of the constitution. So her conviction was tossed, and Mass had to change the laws, stun guns are now legal in Mass. You may think it was logical, but Mas didn't view it as arms vs guns, they viewed it as arms used during the time the constitution was written. it was a very narrow view and SCOTUS overruled them.

Edit: oops terrible typo, stun guns are NOW legal